If republicans hadn't distracted him with impeachment?
2006-09-11 07:26:10 · 18 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
no, fireside, don't put words in my mouth. Answer the question, please. The one I asked.
2006-09-11 07:32:14 · update #1
hmmm...cvq, I don't think that the two are the same. Having an affair isn't against the law, or an impeachable offense. Murder, breaking and entering, kidnapping, and drug use are. Who looks silly now?
2006-09-11 07:34:00 · update #2
oh I guess I hit a nerve with some of you. heehee. All you who don't answer my question...
2006-09-11 07:35:30 · update #3
cvq, we are talking about crimes committed that led to investigation. Congress had no right to begin with to investigate Clinton, although Clinton responded to it improperly. Murder, torture, abuse, kidnapping, etc...WERE investigatable offenses. Nobody 'tripped up Manson' to try and catch him in something. Monica gate was a witch hunt.
2006-09-12 03:55:35 · update #4
turbo, your insults and insinuations are showing your true colors. Have some respect, please.
2006-09-12 03:57:01 · update #5
Possibly. You can certainly lay some blame for Republicans over-reaching on that issue and not concentrating more effort on the terrorism issue themselves. However, much of the intelligence gathering and counter-terrorism efforts are carried out by the CIA and FBI bureaucracy, not by the president or the cabinet. Something else you have to consider too: would Clinton have used the extra time to make better decisions, like making it easier to share information and streamlining the decision making process? Most of the reasons given for the intelligence failures seemed to involve over-thinking the problems - worrying too much attention to how the public would view things if something went wrong, making sure all the "i's" were dotted and "t's" were crossed, and everyone had their as*es covered - that takes a lot of concentration too.
In any case, hindsight is 20/20 (assuming you aren't trying to point fingers, in which case it's significantly, and conveniently cloudy). The point of this exercise is to understand the mistakes and make adjustments. If this forum is any indication, intelligent dialog leading to constructive action is unlikely.
If all we are able to do is point fingers at one another, we'll look pretty silly in that pose when the next terrorist strike happens.
2006-09-11 08:46:09 · answer #1 · answered by Will 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Clinton was NOT being charged with having an affair!! He WAS being impeached for lying under oath. That is a felony and an impeachable offense. He was not impeached.
He most likely could have concentrated more on the presidency without the charges, but he did a fairly good job as President!!
Chow!!
2006-09-11 14:37:56 · answer #2 · answered by No one 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
Denied the wire tap requested under the Foriegn Intelligence Security Act (FISA) on Wen Ho Lee, the nuclear physicist who sold secrets to china. The only tap ever to be denied in the history of FISA today.
Gave "communications satellite" equipment that happened to be the exact same technology that the US uses in the ICBM missle system
His wife jacked up health care and made a few grand on the deal to boot.
I just don't think it was distraction....Clinton was not a good President.
2006-09-11 14:40:35 · answer #3 · answered by Q-burt 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
How much do you know about the impeachment hearings and what lead up to that black horrible day in American history. The impeachment or possible impeachment of a President is never a good thing for the country. I have provided a NON-PARTISAN link for you to review and answer for yourself the above question. My opinion is if President Clinton would have been concentrating on the business of running the State of Arkansas and the Country he would not of had to endure this horribly emabarrassing moment in American History. May God Bless him for the work he is doing after his presidency, his efforts with Bush Senior are noted and commendable. I wish he would of devoted this much fervor to serving the country while he was in office.
PS- Sorry about the first post- I just couldn't resist. :)
PS- He was also dealing with the WhiteWater scandal.
2006-09-11 14:29:18 · answer #4 · answered by fire_side_2003 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
No.
Dick Morris has said that, in spite of his reputation as some kind of genius, Bill Clinton is not capable of thinking about more than one thing at a time.
And all of us here know what that one thing was.
2006-09-11 15:22:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Impeachment didn't come until 1998. He diddled for 6 years prior to that, oh kneepadded one. Is that a stain on your blue dress.... ?
2006-09-11 14:40:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Maybe Charlie Manson could have concentrated on his "ministry" more, if the police hadn't distracted him with prosecution.
Same logic as your question. See how silly it sounds?
PS I was going to respond before I even saw your ps. Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes.
If this is objectionable in the context of a sexual harrasment case, then why has no Democrat proposed changing the law, to make such suits harder to bring? If they did I missed it.
My example was extreme, but it illustrates the point - you are blaming the law for making the criminal answer for his actions.
I like your profile! I love a good debate too.
I never look silly here - because I don't post my own picture! :)
2006-09-11 14:29:23 · answer #7 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 5⤊ 5⤋
The man had his brain inside a woman's mouth. I think that was distracting enough.
2006-09-11 14:32:28 · answer #8 · answered by Huevos Rancheros 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is hard to concentrate when everyone has their head in your pants. That judge who let the Paula Jones case proceed during his presidentcy should have been forced to step down.
2006-09-11 14:31:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Ummmm - for the record, I'm not sure Monica was a republican, and she certainly wasn't threatening impeachment. She most definitely was a distraction though!
2006-09-11 14:30:16 · answer #10 · answered by loving father 5 · 4⤊ 4⤋